1

Multiple roles of student and instructor in university teaching and learning processes

Malcolm Brady

DCU Business School,

Dublin City University,

Dublin 9, Ireland.

Email: malcolm.brady@dcu.ie

Tel. +353 1 7005188

Abstract

This paper examines six key university teaching and learning processes using Checkland’s

CATWOE mnemonic and the SIPOC model from lean operations theory. The analysis shows

that students play a number of different roles in these processes: as customer, actor, supplier,

raw material and end product. The analysis also shows that instructors play a number of

different roles in these self-same processes: as supplier, actor and customer. The paper

concludes that viewing students as customers is overly simplistic. The paper suggests that

students, instructors and support staff must accept that students play a multiplicity of roles,

sometimes simultaneously, in university teaching and learning processes. The paper suggests

that awareness among instructors of the different processes taking place and of the roles that

students and instructors themselves play in those processes will improve the ability of

universities to carry out their teaching and learning mission.

Keywords: university, teaching, learning, process, student, customer

Acknowledgement: the author is grateful to the editor for his encouragement and to the two

anonymous reviewers for their many and useful comments on the manuscript.

2

Multiple roles of student and instructor in university teaching and learning processes

This paper carries out a detailed analysis of university teaching and learning processes and

explores the various roles that students play in these processes, including the role of

customer. Six key university teaching and learning processes are proposed and analyzed

under the input-process-output systems paradigm. The paper follows a line of research that

takes a process or systems view of the work of educational institutions (Weller, 1998; Walker

and & Ainsworth, 2001; Sasse et al., 2008; Stepanovich, 2009; Porter & Córdoba, 2009;

Flannery & Pragman, 2010). The paper uses two specific systems analysis tools: the

CATWOE mnemonic from soft systems theory (Checkland, 1985a) and the SIPOC model

from the quality and lean operations literature (Pyzdek, 2003).

The paper follows a small number of broad assumptions about learning in general and

universities in particular. It takes as its starting point that the primary mission of most

universities is to carry out research into phenomena of interest and to disseminate the

knowledge gained from this research by various means, primarily through teaching and

publication. The first assumption therefore is that universities exist in order to codify

knowledge and transmit it from one generation to the next in order that society moves

forward (or at least does not lose knowledge). Secondly, it is assumed that universities

transmit knowledge largely by means of prescribed, designed, formal degree programs

comprising specified courses rather than through individual research, on the job training,

apprenticeship, self-teaching, or ad-hoc learning (however note that higher-level learning is

typically carried out through individual or team-based research). Thirdly it is assumed that a

series of meetings, over some specified time period, takes place between instructor and

student in order to engage student learning during a course. Fourthly, it is assumed that not

3

all knowledge transfer can take place in class meetings and students must therefore invest

additional time in study. Fifthly, it is assumed that student work is assessed and graded in

order to verify the extent of student learning. These broad assumptions provide the

underpinning for the teaching and learning processes analysed in this paper.

The paper makes two main contributions: firstly, it identifies and separates out several key

teaching and learning processes and examines in detail the transformation that takes place

during the process. The paper then identifies the various roles that students and instructors

take on during each process; the identification of these roles and their implications for

teaching and learning provides the second contribution of the paper.

The paper is laid out as follows. Section one briefly reviews the literature on learning

paradigms and metaphors for students. In section two the analysis approach is presented and

the process analysis techniques are introduced. Section three examines in detail six key

university teaching and learning transformation processes. Section four presents a discussion

of the implications of the process analysis for faculty and students.

1. STUDENT METAPHORS AND LEARNING PARADIGMS

This paper was prompted by a debate on the topic of ‘student as customer’ that took place a

number of years ago in the university in which the author works. Unsurprisingly the debate

became heated with strong arguments being made for and against. A similar debate is taking

place in the academic literature with many authors recommending that academics view their

students as customers and be responsive to their needs (Wallace, 1999; Bridges, 1999;

McCollough & Gremler, 1999; Obermiller & Atwood, 2011). While the student-as-customer

view has usefully placed emphasis on the student, a number of drawbacks to this view have

also been presented, for example: class meetings may become popularity contests, education

4

may become entertainment, grades may become inflated (Franz, 1998; Bailey, 2000; Ferris,

2002; Gross & Hogler 2005; Acevedo, 2011). These concerns have resulted in a number of

alternative metaphors for students being put forward. Franz (1998) views students as fitness

trainees, to be directed and motivated by an instructor. Bailey (2000) and Armstrong (2003)

view students as clients with whom academics should maintain a professional relationship.

Ferris (2002 and 2003) and Gillespie & Parry (2009) suggest a junior-partner or employee

metaphor. Mintzberg & Gosling (2011) view students as participants in the educational

process. In contrast to the above papers where students are typically allocated a single role,

this paper suggests that students take on a multiplicity of roles in teaching and learning

processes, often simultaneously. The paper also suggests that instructors likewise play a

multiplicity of roles. It is this multiplicity and simultaneity of roles played by the two primary

actors that makes teaching and learning processes particularly complex.

The debate on the role of student in the learning process dovetails with discussion in the

literature on the nature of teaching and learning itself. Approaches to teaching and learning

in management education are in transition (Gallos, 2008) and in need of reform (Pffefer &

Fong, 2002). The traditional teacher-centric view of teaching and learning sees the instructor

as the fount of knowledge, disseminating that knowledge through formal lectures. This view

is gradually being replaced by a more student-centric approach to teaching and learning

(Mintzberg & Gosling, 2011; Berggren & Söderlund, 2011) where students are actively

encouraged by instructors to become more involved in class meetings, for example by

discussing case studies, making presentations based on their own analysis, engaging in active

commentary and criticism, reflecting on their own practice or completing learning journals.

At the limit students co-create their own knowledge leading to a new learning paradigm

where knowledge claims are viewed as social constructions (Bedeain, 2004) and that business

5

education itself is a social construction (Antunes & Thomas, 2007). Although there exist a

number of different learning paradigms the series of teaching and learning processes put

forward in this paper exist independently of the learning paradigm. For example, class

meetings will take place whether they are teacher or student centric and whether knowledge

is transferred or co-produced. The learning paradigm will of course have a major impact on

how the class meeting process is carried out in practice.

2. PROCESS ANALYSIS

Viewing the work of an organization as a series of processes has become a paradigm in the

business discipline since Michael Porter first put forward his concept of the value chain

(Porter, 1985:ch.2). Other authors from the management literature have built on this theme:

Michael Hammer (1990) suggested the need to examine and reengineer the large-scale

business processes inherent in organizations. The quality and lean literatures have long taken

the view that all work is a process (Crosby, 1979; Imai, 1986; Womack et al, 1991). In the

field of economics Nelson & Winter (1982) identified routines as the fundamental unit of

business organizations and the basis for their evolutionary theory of the firm. An activity

based approach is also evident in the marketing discipline where the ‘service blueprint’

concept demonstrated the usefulness of visualizing a service as a process (Shostack, 1982).

This paper draws on this substantial literature of process-based thinking in its analysis of

teaching and learning processes.

Inherent in the process view is the customer as receiver of the output of the transformation:

that is, the ‘next operation as customer’ (Bhote, 1992). However, the concept of customer is

neither simple nor straight-forward (Brysland & Curry, 2001:392), and particularly so in a

university context. Customers may be internal or external to the organization; customers may

be multiple when a process results in several different outputs, each going to a different

6

customer; there may also be confusion between those who receive a service and those who

pay for it with either or both or none being referred to as customer. Checkland (1985a)

defines the customer as the receiver of the output of the process. He recognizes that this

‘customer’ is not necessarily the one who pays for the service, and may not even want or

require it. He adds that it may be useful to view the customer as the victim or beneficiary of

the service and gives the example of a prisoner as victim (or beneficiary) of the prison

service: he receives the service but does not pay for it and probably does not desire it. This

paper adopts Checkland’s view of the customer as beneficiary of the output of a process.

This paper focuses on the teaching element of the mission and uses the soft systems approach

pioneered by Checkland (1985a and 1985b) and the SIPOC approach which derives from the

lean operations literature (Pyzdek, 2003:388) to analyze these teaching related processes. The

central tenet of the soft systems approach is that a process carries out transformational work

on some input and produces some output: the output is a transformed version of the input. A

starting point for this type of analysis is to focus on the transformation and to determine

exactly what is being transformed. Checkland developed the CATWOE mnemonic to

describe the six major elements in the transformation process: the customer (C) who receives

the output of the process and who is viewed as the victim or beneficiary of the process; the

actors (A) who carry out the transformation; the transformation (T) itself where inputs are

turned into outputs; the world-view (Weltangshauung) which represents the paradigm under

which the transformation takes place; the owner (O) of the process, who is also the person or

entity who can halt the process or stop it from taking place; and finally the environment (E)

which represents the constraints under which the process takes place. The SIPOC model is an

extension of the standard input-process-output (I, P, O) systems paradigm to include the

7

supplier (S) who is the provider of the inputs, and the customer (C) who is the receiver of the

outputs of the process.

The SIPOC and CATWOE tools are complementary. The SIPOC tool focuses more on the

process flow itself and identifies and specifies the various elements within the process flow.

The CATWOE tool takes more into account the context under which the process takes place.

It considers the philosophy underpinning the process, the environmental constraints and the

critical stakeholders in the process: customer, actors, and owners. The CATWOE approach

also emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of the transformation that takes

place: what is transformed and how is it transformed. Whereas SIPOC emphasizes supplier

and customer, CATWOE makes explicit the actors involved in carrying out the

transformation process and the customer as beneficiary of that transformation. While each

tool separately provides a considerable amount of information, used together they provide a

more holistic view of a process and also act as a cross check on each other.

3. UNIVERSITY TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES

The author, drawing on a decade of professional experience as a business analyst and fifteen

years as an academic with experience of teaching in the European and US systems, has

identified six key processes that are carried out in fulfillment of the university teaching

mission. These key processes are primarily based around the life cycle of knowledge: its

aggregation firstly into programs and then more finely into courses, its transmission via class

meetings, its internalization during study, and the verification of its transmission and

internalization through assessment, grading and award. The paper does not attempt to carry

out a full process analysis of the teaching and learning function of a university as this would

involve examining the creation, maintenance and deletion processes for each entity relevant

to a university including programs, courses and assignments and students, as well as

8

consideration of a great number of additional processes such as student enrolment, student

feedback, plagiarism handling, student review of teaching, quality assurance, course review

and program review. Instead the paper concentrates on entity creation processes: those

processes that create programs, courses, class meetings, assignments, grades and graduates.

These entities are shown in figure 1 in the form of a simplified entity relationship diagram

(Lejk & Deeks, 2002:115). The crows foot symbol represents ‘many’ and the diagram can be

read as follows: ‘a program comprises many courses’, ‘a course is held as many class

meetings’, ‘a course contains many assignments’, ‘a course has many students enrolled on it’,

‘an assignment leads to many pieces of student work’, ‘a piece of student work is submitted

by a student enrolled on the course’ and so on. The processes examined in the paper revolve

around the use of these entities. For example, in the assessment process a student completes

an assignment and submits it as a piece of work for grading. In the grading process the

instructor takes a piece of submitted student work and grades it. Note that the paper does not

examine the process of creating knowledge itself as this is primarily a research rather than a

teaching and learning process.

------------- insert figure 1 around here --------------

The six teaching and learning processes examined in this paper are: program development,

course design, class meeting, study, assessment and grading. The program development

process takes place when the need for a new program is identified. The course design

process then turns domain knowledge into the formal materials of a specific course that

students will undertake. During class meetings these materials are conveyed to the student

through a variety of means: seminars, facilitated workshops, formal lectures, case

discussions, business simulations, laboratories, tutorials and many more. In the study process

the student takes these materials and through self or supported study consolidates his or her

9

learning. The assessment process assigns work to students that they must complete and

submit for grading; work may take place in a formal terminal examination setting or

continuously during the course in the form of reports, essays, or other formats. The grading

process then determines the extent to which the student has engaged with and assimilated the

materials; typically the output of the grading process is a grade for each piece of work. These

are the bread-and-butter processes of teaching and learning: the processes on which

academics spend most of their teaching and learning time. It is clear that they are closely

interlinked in a value chain (Sasse et al., 2008) with in many cases the output of one process

becoming the input of another. However, although interlinked, the processes tend to be

carried out in a very separate fashion within universities. The processes are summarized in

table 1 and examined in detail in the following sections.

-------------- insert table 1 around here --------------

3.1 Program development

The program development process transforms a societal requirement for the transmission of

specific knowledge into a defined program of study to be made available to students. It

normally comprises a number of specific courses or themes each of which has its own

content, topics, teaching methodology and assessment approach. Program development is a

long and complex process and continues throughout the life of a program (Buckley & Monks,

2008). The output is comprised of specifications for the entire program and detailed

descriptors for each course within the program; second order outputs are course brochures,

websites, advertisements, posters etc. The outputs are directed in the first instance at various

committees and panels, for example accreditation and validation panels at school and

university level that must assess and approve the new program. Outputs of a newly accredited

program are directed at potential students who may wish to undertake the program and at

professors who will use them to carry out detailed course design. Professors therefore are the

10

customers for one output of the process: course specifications. Professors will use these as a

starting point when designing their courses in detail. Potential students are also customers in

that they are recipients of marketing outputs and use these materials to decide whether or not

to sign up for a program. The actors are the program development team under the leadership

of the program chair or director. The owner of the process is the school that initiated the

program and that presumably has the power to retire the program; from a practical point of

view the owner is usually the Head of School or Dean of Faculty.

Clearly this is an intricate and complex process that takes place over a long duration, often

several years. The process occurs only rarely and is most probably initiated by the school

itself whenever it determines a need for a new program. Society is the supplier of inputs in

the form of specific requirements for the program. An environmental scanning process may

take place before this in order to determine a need for a new program. The transformation

that takes place is that a relatively abstract societal need for formalized knowledge is turned

into a formal program with a defined set of modules and an outline specification for each of

those modules. The world-view under which the program development process is carried out

is that there exists an accepted societal need for specific knowledge transmission and that

universities are appropriate providers of such transmission. External constraints on the

process are that sufficient demand exists for the program, that sufficient resources are

available to deliver the program, that the School is credibly capable of delivering the

program, and that the program merits delivery at university level. Some form of accreditation

sub-process will usually take place to ensure that the program will meet these constraints

before it is launched. The SIPOC elements of the process are illustrated in figure 2

(indicating from left to right: supplier, inputs, process, outputs and customer) and CATWOE

elements of the process are given in table 2.

11

----------------- insert figure 2 around here ------------------

----------------- insert table 2 around here -------------------

An implication of this analysis is that there are two customers – potential student and

professor – and each has distinct needs. The potential student requires information about the

program in order to make the decision whether or not to enroll on the program. The

information must give the potential student a description of the program and the courses on

the program, ideally in layman’s language. Such information about the program is created

primarily for the purpose of marketing the program. On the other hand, the professor requires

information about the program in order to prepare the actual course to be delivered onto the

program. This information has an operational purpose and must be sufficiently detailed so as

to provide clear guidance to the professor about the requirements of the program. It is

important that these distinct requirements of the two sets of customers are clearly understood,

else the university runs the risk of providing the wrong kind of information about its

programs; for example far too detailed information to potential students or information too

scant to accurately guide professors.

3.2 Course design

Course design is a strategic educational process and is crucially important in achieving

effective student learning (Schmidt-Wilk, 2011). Whetton (2007) suggests that good course

design centers around three main outputs: learning objectives, learning activities and learning

assessment. The formal output of the course design process comprises a set of materials that

make up the course. The nature of these outputs is usually defined by the university and may

include a detailed course outline, a list of recommended textbooks, and a list of required

readings, slides and presentation materials, case studies, tutorial sessions, laboratory

schedules, schedule of class meetings, schedule of assignments and so on. The inputs

12

comprise domain knowledge in the form of concepts, topics, theories, frameworks, models,

teaching approaches and conventions that comprise the body of knowledge in a particular

discipline, field or research area. The inputs also comprise a course descriptor that specifies

the nature and specific requirements of the course, set in the context of the program as a

whole. Recall that the course descriptor is an output of the program development process.

The course design process is illustrated graphically in figure 3 and the CATWOE elements of

the process are given in table 3.

--------------- insert figure 3 around here ---------------

--------------- insert table 3 around here ----------------

The transformation that takes place in the process is the distilling of the body of knowledge

in the field into a format that can be delivered in appropriate chunks to a cohort of students

following a specific program of study. The primary actor in the process is the professor who

will carry out the transformation using the knowledge, skills and experience that they have

gained over the course of their career. The person who will receive these materials is the

student undertaking the course; by definition the student therefore is the customer. The main

suppliers of inputs are the academics in the field who have created and codified the domain

knowledge. The program chair who supplies the course descriptor, which acts as a broad

template for the course, is also a supplier. The owner of the process is arguably the program

chair or the department head, either of whom may remove a specific module from a program.

The world-view underpinning this process is that the individual professor is the best person to

define the specific content for the course and then go on to develop the course. While there is

some movement toward team development and teaching of courses, most courses are

developed by a single academic and are the responsibility of that academic. This has the

13

advantage that individual academics relate strongly to and identify with their courses leading

to a greater engagement by the professor in preparation and delivery of the course. It has the

disadvantage that courses may be somewhat idiosyncratic and two courses with the same title

may turn out to have quite different content, delivery and assessment mechanisms. It also has

the disadvantage that courses may be designed to suit the instructor rather than the student.

For example, courses may be designed to further the research or practice interests of the

professor. Indeed the choice of course itself may reflect the interests of faculty rather than

what is best for the studenti.

An environmental constraint is that courses must fit within an academic time frame, usually a

semester but sometimes an academic year. The course therefore must be of sufficient size to

warrant a semester but not so large that it is impossible for students to absorb the material in

the timeframe allowed. Another constraint is that a course must fit within the domain of

experience of a single academic. However, this constraint may be lifted with a move towards

team teaching of courses. There are a number of possibilities here: two or more academics

could deliver the entire course, both academics being present at each class meeting, bringing

a variety of viewpoints to bear on a topic and so providing a stimulating if costly learning

environment. A second possibility is that academics could specialize at topic rather than

course level, each academic taking a number of topics on a course. While this will increase

the variety of inputs into a course and allow individual academics to focus on specific topics

it will also dilute the role and responsibility of the individual academic with respect to the

course as a whole. This approach will also switch the basic unit of academic workload from

course to topic, the ramifications of which are not clear.

14

An implication of this analysis is that students are the customers of the course design process

and outputs should be tailored to their needs. For example, course materials should be clearly

written, unambiguous and understandable to students; prescribed texts should be readily

available and not overly-priced. Professors may need to check that texts are available in the

university library and, if not, request that they be made available. Students should be made

aware of any specific costs that they will be expected to bear e.g. for business simulations,

site visits and so on. Students should be made aware of instructor expectations regarding their

participation in and contribution to class meetings. Details of assessments and deadlines must

be made clear to students from the outset and not drip-fed (unless that is intentional from a

pedagogic point of view).

3.3 Class meeting

During the class meetings the set of raw materials that comprise the course are read,

considered, discussed, analyzed, debated and evaluated by students and the instructor. Class

meetings usually take place over relatively small periods of time (one to three hours) and are

spread out over one or two semesters. The main customers are the students who receive the

materials and are led through them by the instructor thereby gaining a greater appreciation of

the materials. However, the instructor herself arguably is also a beneficiary of the process as

typically her own understanding of the materials is augmented through meeting with the

class. For example, while the instructor may present and explain the materials to the students,

the students in turn may make comments, ask questions, and generally critique the materials.

This questioning, commenting and critiquing can result in an improvement in the instructor’s

own understanding and appreciation of the materials. The instructor in her turn may further

consider, review and evaluate the materials.

15

The primary actors in the class meeting process are the instructor and the students. The

instructor may be the professor who designed the course but could be a different professor,

lecturer or teaching assistant who did not design the course but who is to deliver it. There are

a number of reasons why the instructor may not be the same person as the professor who

designed the course: the course may be delivered multiple times in a semester, for example to

different cohorts of students or different programs of study, and this may necessitate multiple

deliveries by several different people; or the course may have been designed a number of

years prior to delivery by a professor who has since departed from the institution. The

instructor is the main actor in that he or she is responsible for organizing and choreographing

the meeting.

The world view underpinning the class meeting is that learning requires the student and the

teacher to meet up in some forum and on a regular basis. A staged transmission of materials

from instructor to student is required for learning and this transmission takes place through a

series of meetings, either physical or virtual, between instructor and student. Note however

that the class meeting process takes place irrespective of the learning paradigm employed:

traditional lecture or co-creation of learning. Under both paradigms students and instructors

meet up in the one location. However the roles of students within the meeting are very

different under the two paradigms. The traditional approach is that class meetings take the

form of lectures where the instructor delivers the material and students listen and take notes.

This traditional approach places students in a passive role in class meetings, their interaction

being limited to asking the occasional question. However the role of students in classrooms is

changing: students are increasingly being viewed as co-creators of learning and are being

actively encouraged by instructors to take on a more active role in the classroom. For

example, in business school classroom students regularly make formal presentations, provide

16

critiques of theory, analyze case studies, examine business scenarios and discuss management

situations. Even when students adopt a passive role they are co-creators of knowledge in that

they listen to the instructor, absorb the materials, make notes on or annotate the materials,

each in their own way according to their abilities, aptitudes, prior knowledge and well-being

on the day. Whether active or passive each student undergoes a unique learning experience

during the class meeting itself.

This new role for students in turn alters the role of instructors. They must move from acting

as traditional lecturer and fount of knowledge – the sage on the stage - to that of facilitator of

student learning – the guide on the side. Instructors elicit opinions and ideas from their

students and draw them more into the process of learning. In tandem with this change in style

is a change in the power relationship between students and instructor. In lecturer style class

meetings power and control resides almost entirely with the instructor. He or she decides the

order of the topics, the points to be covered under each topic, and the time to be spent on each

topic during the class. In facilitator mode class meetings the instructor is forced to move

more according to the pace and interests of the students. A consequence of this is that more

time than planned may be spent on a topic if that topic turns out to excite student interest.

That in turn may mean that another topic may need to be covered more quickly than planned,

or not at all. The instructor is no longer all powerful or all controlling: some power and

control is ceded to students.

Other relevant actors are administrators who ensure the meeting is scheduled, that the room

or theatre is prepared, and that the materials are all in place either physically or online. Guest

speakers or other visitors, teaching assistants or demonstrators may also play a role. The main

supplier of inputs into the process is the instructor although students also provide inputs in

17

the form of presentations, additional materials, and their own ideas. The owner of the

process is the instructor who can cancel or reschedule the meeting. The class meeting process

is illustrated graphically in figure 4 and the CATWOE elements are summarized in table 4.

-------------- insert figure 4 around here ---------------

-------------- insert table 4 around here ----------------

There are significant environmental constraints at play. Students are less interested in coming

into a physical college resulting in universities providing more flexible meeting modes such

as block and intensive week-long deliveries in place of the traditional two one-hour weekly

meetings. New information technologies increase the reach of professors allowing lectures to

be delivered remotely via the internet, World Wide Web and teaching platforms such as

Moodle and Blackboard. A plethora of new electronic teaching tools such as podcasts,

videos, email, social media and electronic discussion forums have become available.

Environmental constraints are impinging on the class meeting process in another significant

way in recent years. For several thousand years teaching and learning has taken place

primarily in a classroom. Concepts are transmitted directly from instructor to student in the

same physical space. The advent of online technology now offers the option of a virtual

classroom: students no longer have to be present in the same physical space at the same time.

Online offers two new distinct virtual spaces: synchronous and asynchronous. Class meetings

can take place with all participants present at the same time and with direct connections

between them, i.e. class meetings may take place in virtual space but are synchronous, for

example webinars. Class meetings can also take place asynchronously where participants do

not meet up in the physical world but also do not need to be present at the same time, i.e.

meetings are asynchronous. Various transmission media such as websites, podcasts, email

18

and so on fall into this category. Indeed courses of the future will likely use a variety of class

meeting types, for example a combination or blend of physical class meetings together with

virtual but synchronous meetings and supported by a variety of asynchronous mechanisms.

A third environmental change taking place is that, at senior university management levels,

students are being viewed as customers who receive a service from the instructor. It is

common practice for students to rate instructors using in-house end of semester surveys or

independent websites. In-house surveys may be carried out by a quality control function

within the university but independently of the instructor. Instructors need to be aware of this

increasingly customer-centric view of student at higher levels of the organization, even if

they themselves view students as having a multiplicity of roles.

There are a number of implications from this analysis. Firstly, there is no single clear-cut

customer of the class meeting process. Students and instructors both are customers in that

each receives benefit from the outputs of the process. Secondly, students and instructors play

a multiplicity of roles in the process. While this makes the class meeting a more dynamic

event it may be create confusion for students. They may be unsure as to how to prepare for

the class meeting. They may be unsure as to what role they are expected to play during the

meeting. They may be unsure as to when their role changes during the meeting. It is therefore

essential that the instructor prepares students for the meeting and keeps them informed during

the meeting as to what their roles are at any point in time. Students may not all play the same

role at the same time. For example, one set of students may be presenters while another set

may be peer assessors. These various roles must be clearly pointed out to students. All this

choreography takes time and the instructor must allow time for this before and during class

meetings.

19

Thirdly, as the number of student roles increases control over the process by the instructor

reduces. This can empower students and increase the level of their engagement in the meeting

thereby enhancing their learning experience. However it may also mean that material that the

instructor intended to cover in the meeting ends up being left out. Students may react against

this: they may feel deprived of that material or they may feel irritated at having to spend time

reading up on material not covered in class. Clearly a great deal of judgment must be

exercised by the instructor as to what to cover and when to let a discussion continue, all the

while under the spotlight. Instructors may ease their predicament by pointing out to students

the nature of the class meeting process, the multiple roles being played by the students, the

instructor’s expectation of each role, and the multiple roles being played by the instructor.

The instructor may seek help from the student’s in carrying out his or her role e.g. by asking

students to act as time keepers or as peer assessors. This of course creates even further roles

for students.

Fourthly, students and instructors play several roles simultaneously. This is a very difficult

thing to do for both parties but particularly for the instructor. The instructor must retain in his

or her head the order of events to take place during the meeting, must issue notes or handouts

to students, must formally present materials to students verbally and possibly with an

accompanying slideshow, must elicit comments and contributions from the audience, must

field questions from students, and may have to assess performances and determine grades for

individual or group contributions to the meeting.

Fifthly, instructors may need to consider locating class meeting in venues other than physical

classrooms. Online classrooms offer a number of significant advantages (and also some

20

disadvantages) over traditional physical spaces. However instructors may need to increase

their online teaching and learning knowledge and skills in order to consider and take up these

new online opportunities. Another consideration is that students may be more familiar than

instructors with these new technologies further eroding the power gap between instructor and

student and possibly resulting in some further discomfort on the part of instructors.

3.4 Study

The study process is largely carried out by the student with relatively little involvement by

the university. The student supplies most of the inputs: an appreciation of the course

materials gained from lectures and from prior study and the course materials themselves

annotated by the student. The transformation that takes place is the consolidation of these

inputs in the mind of the student through reading, practice, solving problems, writing out

summaries, making further notes and so on. The student himself also becomes gradually

transformed as the process is carried out over the duration of the course. The professor may

provide some input such as guidelines for study in the particular subject area but the student

is the main actor in the process as it is he or she who does the work of studying. The student

is also the customer in that he is the beneficiary of the process: he gains the learning or

struggles with the material. The output is some form of consolidated understanding of the

topics and concepts presented during the course. The student is clearly the owner of the

process: the student can stop and start the process at will.

Unlike at second level the university tends to involve itself very little in the study process

other than in the provision of study space and study materials, usually within the library. The

worldview here is that students should largely be capable of studying by themselves, with

relatively little formal direction or support being required. However, professors may become

involved in the process if students contact them with queries about concepts, topics or

21

materials. The extent of such contact is variable and depends on the nature of the materials,

the confidence and maturity of the student, access to the university and availability and

approachability of professors. Contact is usually initiated by the student.

A number of environmental constraints exist. Places in libraries may be insufficient at peak

periods forcing students to study in less desirable locations for example school corridors,

empty classrooms or coffee shops. Environmental factors such as small tables, background

noise, glaring lights and interruptions militate against successful study. Lack of parental and

peer support may de-motivate students. Social or other activities divert students from study.

The study process is illustrated in figure 5 and the CATWOE elements are summarized in

table 5.

Study is often the Cinderella of the teaching and learning processes: it gets least attention

from faculty and relatively little in the way of resources from the university. However an

implication of this analysis is that study is recognized as one of the six teaching and learning

processes. This may raise its profile and encourage universities to take the study process

more seriously. While some initiatives could be undertaken by individual professors such as

provision of worked-examples, full-scale support for student study probably requires a

response at institutional or school level. Such support could be aimed at reducing the impact

of environmental constraints on student study, for example setting up study advice centers or

drop in clinics, by providing training in study skills or by fostering the creation of study

groups among students. Indeed a university could increase its level of support for study to

such an extent that it becomes a differentiating feature of the student experience, one that

may distinguish the university from its competitors.

------------- insert figure 5 around here --------------

22

------------ insert table 5 around here ----------------

3.5 Assessment

This process allows students demonstrate their knowledge of the materials that have been

presented to them during the course. It usually takes two forms: a formal examination at the

end of the semester or continuous assessment work that is carried out during the semester.

During the process the examination questions are transformed into answers written onto the

exam script. By means of continuous assessment, assignment requirements are transformed

into a finished piece of work such as an essay, oral presentation, and project or laboratory

reports. The actor carrying out the process is the student who either sits the examination or

submits the assignment. The input to the process is the specification for the assessment: an

exam paper in the case of terminal examination and assignment requirements in the case of a

piece of continuous assessment. The supplier of these inputs is the professor. The output of

the process is the student’s work. This may be in the form of an examination script or a piece

of continuous assessment work such as a project, essay, report or presentation. The customer

of the process is the professor who receives the scripts or student work and who will later go

on to examine and grade these materials.

Arguably the owner of the process is the university as a whole: it would require a very senior

authority to stop an examination process as examination and assessment are fundamental and

crucial activities of a university. This is a rare occurrence but does occasionally happen: for

example, exams may be postponed due to severe weather, outbreak of disease or due to some

other kind of emergency situation. It could also be argued that the owner of the process is the

individual student who may choose not to complete an assignment or not to sit an

examination; in this case it is not the entire process that stops, merely an instance of the

23

process. The assessment process is illustrated graphically in figure 6 and its CATWOE

elements are summarized in table 6.

------------------ insert figure 6 around here ----------------

------------------ insert table 6 around here -----------------

A suggested world view under which the assessment process operates is that students must be

forced or coerced into learning by having to complete some piece of work that they must

hand up for formal examination, and that the work must clearly have been carried out by

themselves alone and unaided. The world view under which continuous assessment operates

is that students will learn by doing and must be motivated to learn not only at the end of the

semester but also during the semester.

An environmental constraint impinging on this process is the trend towards group work for

continuous assessment. This provides an additional learning element for students but the

process becomes less transparent making it more difficult for the examiner to determine the

contribution of each individual student within the group. It may also lead to inter-group

conflict and social loafing (Bailey et al, 2005). Assessment trends are often determined by

societal needs. For example, in business schools continuous assessment is often carried out

through teamwork in order to prepare students to work in industry. An emphasis on oral

assessment reflects industry’s desire for graduates who are capable of making business

presentationsii.

An implication of this analysis is the recognition that assessment is a process in its own right

and not merely a bit player in the class meeting or course design process. Arguably in the

future world of online teaching assessment will take on a greater importance, particularly at

24

local level. While it is feasible that transmission of knowledge through class meetings could

become more and more centralized, with a smaller number of well-resourced world class

institutions providing the bulk of knowledge transmission, assessment will always be carried

out at local level because of the large amount of work involved. Smaller or local universities

may come to depend more and more on the assessment and grading processes for their

livelihood.

3.6 Grading

The inputs to the grading process are the students’ work in the form of examination scripts

and submitted assignments. This work is then examined by the instructor and the output is a

grade for each piece of work. The overall output is an aggregated grade for each student on a

course. Grading is carried out by the professor or other member of the academic staff. The

grading process is illustrated graphically in figure 7 and the CATWOE elements are

summarized in table 7.

A number of different worldviews underpin this process. Firstly is the view that universities

assess students on their academic abilities and not on other abilities: social, interpersonal,

cultural, sporting, entrepreneurial and so on. This view has changed somewhat in recent years

with some universities now also taking in account extra-curricular activities. Secondly is the

view that the grade is a reasonable representation of the academic ability of the student.

Thirdly is the view that the submission of materials for grading requires the use of the written

word (incorporating letters, symbols or numbers) either in the form of questions or in the

form of answers. Even use of multiple choice questions assumes a strong ability to

understand the written word; mathematically based questions require the ability to understand

written symbols and written words.

25

Several environmental factors constrain this process. Firstly, not all students are equally

adept at relating to the written word. Increasingly this is taken into account in examination

and in assessment; for example students with special needs may be examined under different

conditions and assessed under special guidelines. Secondly, the increasing use of group work

makes it difficult to assess the contribution of an individual to the work of the group.

Assigning a group mark to each individual within the group may not correctly assess

individual contributions to the piece of work under consideration. Thirdly, there is increasing

use of alternative media to the written word, for example: verbal presentations, prototypes,

computer applications. These alternative modes of submission may require alternative means

of assessment and recording and archiving of submissions.

----------------- insert figure 7 around here ------------------

----------------- insert table 7 around here -------------------

The grading process is one not traditionally favored by academics with many finding it

tedious to carry out. Grading of examination scripts is not an easy task and requires

experience, knowledge and discipline especially when large numbers of students are

involved. Grading of other written materials such as individual essays or group case analyses

also require similar attributes on the part of the grader. Maintaining standards across a large

class of students or across multiple graders requires a considerable amount of discipline and

coordination. However, the comment made under assessment may also apply to the grading

process: should the academic world become more centralized and globalized, grading will

likely be carried out locally due to the volume of work involved. In such a future grading and

assessment could become the bread-and-butter activity of local academic institutions with

knowledge transmission becoming the preserve of well-resourced world class and world-

scale institutions.

26

The exception to this is the grading of multiple choice tests: these could be carried out

remotely and on a large scale through the use of web-based automated tools. Such a form of

assessment and grading could be carried out on a global scale. Indeed SATS and GMAT tests

have been carried out on a global scale for many years, even before the advent of modern

web-enabled information and communications technologies. It is therefore feasible for a large

global academic institution to set up global scale courses with global scale virtual class

meeting, assessment and grading processes, supplemented if necessary by a local physical

tutorial style class meeting process. This argument suggests the possible advent of global

clusters of business schools centered on a world class institution that designs the course and

conducts the main class meetings using faculty with worldwide reputations and supported by

country-based business schools that carry out assessment and grading processes together with

some local class meetings. A second possible future is for strong country-based business

schools to carry out course design, selecting best virtual elements from institutions around the

world and coupling this with some local class meetings using school faculty.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper examined in detail six university teaching and learning processes using a

combination of two techniques from the fields of operations management and systems

analysis: SIPOC and CATWOE. The paper determined that instructors and students play

multiple roles in these processes with students taking roles of actors, customers, suppliers,

raw material and end product and with instructors taking roles of owner, actor, supplier and

customer. With respect to certain processes, the paper suggests that instructors and students

take on multiple roles simultaneously. This is particularly so in class meetings illustrating the

complexity inherent in that process. The paper argues that it is useful for instructors to

appreciate these different roles that both they and students bear. The paper also argues that

27

universities must strive to make students aware that they too have multiple roles to play in the

process of their own education.

The main conclusion to be drawn from the analysis is that to view students uniquely as

customers is somewhat simplistic. While students in some respects are customers, for

example in the course design and class meeting processes, they also play many other roles in

the work of the university. They are actors in the assessment process. They are owners of the

study process. Students may even have multiple roles in a single process. For example, as

well as the role of customer they may also play the roles of actor in the class meeting process,

and may also be a supplier of inputs into that process. Furthermore, students may find

themselves in a number of roles in different processes at the same time: for example, during a

typical week students will attend lectures, complete assignments, and receive feedback on

already submitted work. During a single class meeting students may receive materials and

information as customers, may supply inputs such as a presentation on a case study, and may

actively participate as actors in creating knowledge through their observations, comments,

questions and answers.

The second conclusion to draw from the analysis is that with respect to some processes

students are customers. This recognition puts an onus on the university to meet students’

needs with respect to these processes. For example, course materials, which are the outputs

of the course design process, should be made available to students on time and in a format

that is clear and easily understood. Universities must ensure that the program development

process provides potential students with timely, meaningful and correct information about

courses and university procedures. In the class meeting process materials such as slides and

handouts must be made available to students in a timely fashion and the materials themselves

28

should be appropriate, readable and properly presented. However, it is also clear that there

exist other customers for teaching and learning processes: the instructor is also a customer,

for example in the program development, assessment and class meeting processes. Students

must be encouraged to meet the needs of their customers by providing properly completed

assignments and by being fully prepared for class meetings.

We should also be mindful that Checkland’s view of customers is that they are beneficiaries

of the outputs of the process. Although students receive the output of the grading process, and

in that sense are customers, there is no implication that as customers they should be happy or

satisfied with that outcome i.e. with the grade itself. It is however reasonable for students to

expect to be satisfied with the conduct of the process: that the grade is a fair reflection on the

work carried out, was determined in an impartial manner and was received in a timely

fashion. Similarly, in class meetings students may find course materials tough-going,

challenging and overwhelming at times. Such confusion may lead to a perception among

students that their needs are not being met in turn leading to a feeling of customer

dissatisfaction. What is important is for students to realize, or be brought by instructors to

realize, that they play multiple roles in class meetings, and that responsibilities attach to those

roles. Students in class meetings are not merely passive receivers of information but active

participants. Students should be satisfied with the conduct of class meetings; whether or not

they are satisfied with outcomes also depends on the effort they put in themselves.

This view makes class meetings entirely different to attending the theatre or cinema where

the customer takes an almost entirely passive role and is there solely to be entertained.

Empirical work has shown that students identify themselves with a single role and that this

role conditions their perception of their educational experience (Halbesleben & Wheeler,

29

2009). This paper suggests that educators must bring students to the point where they

recognize that they play multiple roles in education processes. These roles are not simply

metaphors describing how students view learning (Bozlk, 2002) but real roles with real

responsibilities. Instructors must take into account the role that students are playing in order

to set up conditions to stimulate student engagement in their learning (Halbesleben &

Wheeler, 2009).

A third conclusion is that professors also play multiple roles in teaching and learning

processes; indeed like students they may carry out multiple roles within the one process and

they may play several of these roles simultaneously. For example, professors are actors in

course design, owners of class meetings, and customers for assessments. It is vital therefore

for professors to be aware of the role, or roles, that they are playing at any particular time.

This is not an easy thing to do as the instructor is usually the one in the limelight and often

has little support. This is particularly so in class meetings where the instructor must

simultaneously provide their own inputs, elicit student inputs, deal with impromptu events

such as questions, comments and interjections, deal with noises, backchat and other

distractions, evaluate student inputs, and as lead actor choreograph the entire session. In a

single classroom session the instructor therefore may act as actor, supplier, customer and

owner. It may even be worthwhile creating separate real or virtual sections within a

classroom session to separate out these roles. An instructor could take up a different physical

position within the classroom to signify a change in role. For example, the instructor goes to

the front of the class when delivering inputs but moves to the back of the class when

evaluating formal student inputs such as presentations. Preparation of students for roles is

also important. Habesleben & Wheeler (2009) suggest that instructors formally discuss with

students the roles that they are expected to play, and actively prepare students for these roles.

30

A contribution of this paper is to note that students may need to be prepared to take on

multiple roles simultaneously.

A fourth conclusion is that the set of teaching and learning processes are highly integrated

and inter-related. The output of one process is often the input to a following process. This

implies that changing a process may have an effect on other processes, both upstream and

downstream. For example changing mode of delivery or class meeting format may require a

change in mode of assessment. The reverse may also be the case: changing assessment mode

may require a change in the class meeting process. For example, the current trend towards

increased use of group work on the one hand and a requirement to develop students’

presentation skills on the other hand requires changes in a number of processes. In the course

design process this new work must be designed into class meetings and into the mode of

assessment. For example, class size may need to be reduced and the protocol within class

meetings may need to change to accommodate group presentations. The meeting room itself

may need to change, e.g. to a bigger or smaller room, or from flat to tiered. The assessment

process may change because groups, not individuals, are now being assessed (but grades may

still apply to individuals) and presentation skills may need to be assessed by means other than

the traditional written word. The main actor in these different processes may be different and

it can easily happen that communication between these different actors breaks down.

Instructors embarking on new teaching initiatives may find themselves overwhelmed by

existing procedures and bureaucratic structures within universities – to the point where

innovation becomes stifled and naturally innovative instructors start to curb their own

enthusiasm. Universities must work to ensure that bureaucracy does not get in the way of

innovation, that lines of communication are fully open, that innovation in one process is

properly, but also easily, reflected upstream and downstream. This paper suggests that

31

understanding the six main processes underpinning education transmission and identifying

the actors involved and the roles they play will aid universities in streamlining the linkages

between processes.

A fifth conclusion is that all processes are not viewed by universities as being of equal

importance. For example the study process is largely hidden from faculty and universities

typically devote relatively little resources to it. A university that places emphasis on

supporting the study process may be able to create a competitive advantage for itself; for

example, study support could be provided by ensuring that examination requirements are

clear to students, by increasing access to the library, by providing tutor support or by

ensuring that course materials are readily available online. On the other hand universities

typically devote a great deal of time, energy and resources to class meetings. Grading is a

process that professors tend to carry it out where and whenever they can fit it in. Course

design may be carried out by senior staff with lecture delivery carried out by junior or adjunct

staff leading to inconsistencies or gaps between what was intended and what was actually

delivered. Such asymmetric allocation of resources implies that universities view these

processes to be of differing importance. An awareness of the fact that there are at least six

distinct processes may help make faculty more aware of the separate importance of each

process and the importance of consistent interlinking between one process and another.

A sixth conclusion is that universities of the future may choose to focus only on certain

processes instead of attempting to carry out all six as is currently the case. For example, well-

endowed universities with global reputations could choose to concentrate on program

development and course design processes and license out delivery processes to local

institutions. In such a disaggregation of the educational value chain (Sasse et al, 2008) these

32

global institutions will focus on upstream elements. Local level institutions could choose to

focus on the processes that are student intensive – study, assessment, grading and graduation:

i.e. on downstream elements of Sasse et al’s (2008) educational value chain. Until the advent

of a reliable delivery technology that can function at global scale the class meeting process

will probably remain at local level. However collaboration between local and global

universities could lead to a blended set of class meetings, with physical meetings taking place

at local institutions and some of the virtual meetings taking place at global level in

conjunction with the global partner.

A final point to be made is that arguably the above processes are all sub-processes within a

super-process: that of enriching or driving forward society. Here the transformation that takes

place is on society itself whereby as a result of the entire set of activities carried out by the

university society is enriched and developed. The inputs are the young students who come in

as freshmen. Graduates, capable educated citizens, are the output and the customer is society

itself. The suppliers are parents or industry who put forward their children or employees

respectively for further education. The actors who carry out the transformation are faculty,

administrators and the students themselves. Arguably the owner is also society, through

government in the case of public universities and through funders or benefactors in the case

of private ones, as it is society that either wishes to continue in the long run with the

institutions we call universities, or not.

There are a number of limitations to this research project. The analysis is limited to six

teaching and learning processes. However many more processes exist in a university and

many of these are linked with teaching and learning. The research process which transforms

data about the real world into codified knowledge underpins many of the teaching and

33

learning processes, in particular program development, course design and class meetings.

Similarly the administrative processes of fundraising, fee collection, recruitment,

procurement and facilities provision provide the financing, faculty, equipment and facilities

and other resources with which to carry out the teaching and learning processes. Other

support processes also underpin the six teaching processes; for example, the workload

allocation processes assigns instructors to courses and the quality assurance process assesses

the quality of teaching; in many European universities there exists a sub-process within the

assessment process whereby exam papers are sent to external examiners for approval before

the examination is held. These research, administrative and support processes provide a

fruitful avenue for future research into university processes. A further limitation of this

research is that it is based on the author’s experience and observations within a small number

of universities; an avenue for future research is to determine the extent to which these six

processes exist in other universities.

Bibliography

Acevedo, A. 2011. Business ethics 101: the student is not a customer. International Journal

of Management Education, 9(3):1-11.

Antunes, D. & Thomas, H. 2007. The competitive (dis)advantages of European business

schools. Long Range Planning, 40:382-404.

Armstrong, M. 2003. Students as clients: a professional services model for business

education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2: 371-374.

34

Bailey, J.J. 2000. Students as clients in a professional/client relationship.

Journal of Management Education, 24:353-365.

Bailey, J., Sass M., Swiercz, P.M., Seal C. & Kayes, D.C.. 2005. Teaching with and through

Teams: Student-Written, Instructor-Facilitated Case Writing and the Signatory Code. Journal

of Management Education, 29:39-59.

Bedeian, A.G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in

the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3:198–216.

Bergrren, C. & Söderlund, J. 2011. Management education for practicing managers:

combining academic rigor with personal change and organizational action. Journal of

Management Education, 35:377-405.

Bhote, K. 1992. The “next operation” is your customer. Supervisory Management, 39(1):8.

Bozlk, M. 2002. The college student as learner: insight gained through metaphor analysis.

College Student Journal, 36(1):142-151.

Bridges, E. 1999. Experiential learning and customer needs in the undergraduate marketing

research course. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1):51-59.

Brysland, A. & Curry, A. 2001. Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL.

Managing Service Quality, 11(6):389-401.

35

Buckley, F. & Monks, K. 2008. Responding to managers' learning needs in an edge-of-chaos

environment: insights from Ireland. Journal of Management Education, 32: 146-163.

Checkland, P. 1985a. Achieving "desirable and feasible" change: an application of

soft systems methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36:821-831.

Checkland, P. 1985b. From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the

1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36:757-767.

Crosby, P. 1979. Quality is free, New York: McGraw Hill.

Ferris, W.P. 2002. Students as junior partners, professors as senior partners, the B-school as

the firm: a new model for collegiate business education. Academy of Management Learning

and Education, 1:185-193.

Ferris, W.P. 2003. Why the partnership model's usefulness far exceeds that of the client

model: reply to Armstrong. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2:375-377.

Flannery, B.L. & Pragman, C.H. 2010. Service-learning and integrated course redesign:

principles of management and the campus kitchen metaproject. Journal of Management

Education, 34:11-38.

Franz, R.S. 1998. Whatever you do, don't treat your students like customers!

Journal of Management Education, 22:63-69.

36

Gallos, J.V. 2008. Charting a new course for the scholarship of management teaching and

learning. Journal of Management Education, 32:535-540.

Gillespie, T.L. & Parry, R.O. 2009. Students as employees: applying performance

management principles in the management classroom. Journal of Management Education,

33:553-576.

Gross, M.A. & Hogler, R. 2005. What the shadow knows: exploring the hidden dimensions

of the consumer metaphor in management education. Journal of Management Education,

29:3-16.

Halbesleben, J.R.B. & Wheeler, A.R. 2009. Student identification with business education

models: measurement and relationship to educational outcomes. Journal of Management

Education, 33:166-195.

Hammer, M. 1990. Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business

Review, (4):104-112.

Imai, M. 1986. Kaizen: the key to Japan’s competitive success, New York: Random House.

Lejk, M. & Deeks, D. 2002. An introduction to systems analysis techniques. Harlow,

England: Addison-Wesley (2nd edition).

McCollough, M.A. & Gremler, D.D. 1999. Guaranteeing student satisfaction: an exercise in

treating students as customers. Journal of Marketing Education 21(2):118-130.

37

Mintzberg, H. & Gosling,J. 2011. Educating managers beyond borders. Academy of

Management Learning and Education 1:64-76.

Nelson, R. & Winter S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge,

Mass.: Belknap Press.

Obermiller, C. & Atwood, A. 2011. In defence of the student as customer metaphor.

International Journal of Management Education, 9(3):13-16.

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C.T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1:78-95.

Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.

Porter, T. & Córdoba, J. 2009. Three views of systems theories and their implications for

sustainability education, Journal of Management Education, 33: 323-347.

Pyzdek, T. 2003. The six sigma handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sasse, C., Schwering, R., & Dochterman, S. 2008. Rethinking faculty role in a knowledge

age, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2):35-48.

Schmidt-Wilk, J. 2011. Course design as a strategic process. Journal of Management

Education, 35:319–323.

38

Shostack, G.L. 1982. How to design a service, European Journal of Marketing, 16(1):49-63.

Stepanovich, P. 2009. The lobster tale: an exercise in critical thinking. Journal of

Management Education, 33:725-746.

Walker, K. & Ainsworth, P. 2001. Developing a process approach in the business core

curriculum. Issues in Accounting Education, 16:41-66.

Wallace, J.B. 1999. The case for student as customer. Quality Progress, 32(2):47-51.

Weller, L.D. 1998. Unlocking the culture for quality schools: reengineering. International

Journal of Educational Management, 12:250-259.

Whetton, D. 2007. Principles of effective course design: what I wish I had known about

learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31:339-357.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. 1991. The machine that changed the world, New

York: HarperPerennial

39

Figure 1: Model of entities relevant to teaching and learning processes

40

Supplier Input PROCESS Output Customer

Society Societal need Program

development

1)Program

specification

2)Course

descriptors

Potential student

Professor

Program Chair/

Director

Course

descriptor

Course design

Course materials Student

Instructor

(and student)

Course materials Class meeting Materials

appreciated

Student

(and instructor)

Student Appreciated

materials

Study

Concepts

internalized

Student

Instructor Assignment Assessment

Student work Instructor

Student Student work Grading

Grade Student

Table 1: University teaching and learning processes (SIPOC elements)

41

Figure 2: Program development process (SIPOC elements)

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Customer Professor; potential student

Actor Program Chair/Director; program development team

Transformation To convert a societal need into an academic program of

study

Worldview Society requires specific knowledge and the university is a

provider of such knowledge

Owner Dean of Faculty/ Head of School

Environmental

constraints

Sufficient demand exists for the program; sufficient

resources exist to deliver the program; the university is

credibly capable of delivering the program; the program

merits delivery at university level; accreditation

Table 2: Program development process (CATWOE elements)

42

Figure 3: Course design process (SIPOC elements)

COURSE DESIGN PROCESS

Customer Student

Actor Professor

Transformation To distil a body of knowledge into a format deliverable to

students

Worldview The individual professor is expert in the field and best

placed to design a program of study

Owner Program Chair

Environmental

constraints

Course requirements are within a single professor’s area of

expertise; Course is sized to fit within academic timeframe –

semester or year

Table 3: Course design process (CATWOE elements)

43

Figure 4: Class meeting process (SIPOC elements)

CLASS MEETING PROCESS

Customer Student

Actor Instructor; student; administrator

Transformation Raw learning materials are transformed into appreciated

learning materials via the classroom process

Worldview That a staged transmission of materials from instructor to

student is required for learning and that this transmission

takes place through a series of meetings, either physical or

virtual, between instructor and student

Owner Instructor

Environmental

constraints

That the meeting room, whether physical or virtual, is

conducive to learning; that both instructor and student adapt

to the new roles of facilitator and co-creator of learning

respectively; Senior management’s view of student as

customer; rating of instructor by students; technology

Table 4: Class meeting process (CATWOE elements)

44

Figure 5. Study process (SIPOC elements)

STUDY PROCESS

Customer Student

Actor Student

Transformation Learning materials are transformed into consolidated

learning

Worldview That students are largely capable of studying alone and

unaided

Owner Student

Environmental

constraints

Parental and peer support; availability and approachability

of professors; library study places

Table 5: Study process (CATWOE elements)

45

Figure 6. Assessment process (SIPOC elements)

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Customer Professor

Actor Student

Transformation An original piece of student work is created based on

requirements given in an assignment or exam paper

Worldview That students must demonstrate their understanding of the

materials through individual terminal examination or

through continuous assessment

Owner School or university

Environmental

constraints

Assessment may involve group work with attendant risk of

social loafing.

Table 6: Assessment process (CATWOE elements)

46

Figure 7. The grading process (SIPOC elements)

GRADING PROCESS

Customer Student

Actor Professor

Transformation Examination scripts and assignment materials are assessed

and a grade determined

Worldview That professors are best able to assess the level of learning

of students; that learning is best demonstrated through

written work; that learning is best demonstrated through

academic work

Owner School

Environmental

constraints

Dyslexia or other conditions that inhibit student ability to

cope with written symbols; motor or other disabilities that

inhibit students ability to read or write; alternative modes of

demonstration of knowledge such as verbal presentations

and individual or group interviews.

Table 7: Grading process (CATWOE elements)

47

i I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer who suggested this point. ii Ditto